Page 223 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Certain material should enjoy cabinet protection such that it can be considered and debated confidentially. However, this applies to only a limited class of material and should be the exception rather than the rule.
In this case, a report was prepared by a consultant and relied on for a number of decisions that have significantly impacted on the lives of many Canberrans. We are happy to accept that there may be elements of the report that should be protected, but this does not mean that the whole report should be kept secret. The default presumption should be that information is made publicly available unless there is a legitimate and substantial reason why release is not in the public interest.
The High Court of Australia considered this issue in the case of Egan v Willis, which was reported at 195 CLR 424. The case is also the catalyst for the amendments in the New South Wales Legislative Council that we are set to follow in the next sitting. Justices Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne, at paragraph 42, found:
A system of responsible government traditionally has been considered to encompass “the means by which Parliament brings the Executive to account” so that “the Executive’s primary responsibility in its prosecution of government is owed to Parliament”. The point was made by Mill, writing in 1861, who spoke of the task of the legislator “to watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts”. It has been said of the contemporary position in Australia that, whilst “the primary role of Parliament is to pass laws, it also has important functions to question and criticise government on behalf of the people” and that “to secure accountability of government activity is the very essence of responsible government”. In Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, reference was made to those provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution which prescribed the system of responsible government as necessarily implying “a limitation on legislative and executive power to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal parliament”.
The Greens will be seeking to enforce this limitation and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that those situations are determined by an independent arbiter so we do not have a repeat of this situation in the ACT.
I would also like to point out the costs that went along with that particular court case. I think some millions of dollars were spent. That certainly is not a situation that we want to put the ACT into. We do not want to put the ACT into a lengthy court case. Therefore, I move the following amendment to the motion, which has been circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute:
“this Assembly:
(1) notes the consistent refusal of the Government to publicly release the Strategic and Functional Review of the ACT Public Sector and Services in the Assembly; and
(2) in the event the Chief Minister fails to table the Strategic and Functional Review of the ACT Public Sector and Services in the Assembly by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .